Oh look, I've written a book.


~*HEY SHANIQUA!!!*~

Hello

My two cents would be, that there are two types that would get offended. The oppressive religious zealots, and people who were molested as a kid. I think those would get offended.

another question is, if I were to post the aforementioned photograph on this thread, would I get hunted down like a paedophile criminal? Would the board be shut down? Interesting questions

It all depends on the context that it's put in. I would doubt that any serious paedophile would be satisfied with having a photograph that is meant to be an artistic statement as satisfying pornographic material, but even that is somehow disputable. I didn't know about the fact that Goldin was friends with the parents of the girls, so that's a plus for her and a minus for me, but the question still remains why somebody's work relies heavily on its own contextualization, wich in itself undermines the very spirit of making an artistic statement. Unless, of course, Goldin would explain that her pictures aren't to be taken seriously, in which case it's like:''Ok, whatever''.

Given the contentious nature of the debate, I'd probably view that as provocative... which is a facet of the original picture. I'm in the camp that thinks it's a pretty inocuous picture unless you choose to sexualise children, but there's much more effective ways (to use iffy terminology) to see such things. There's a valid point around the ambit of the idea that if someone could get aroused by this then is it a dangerous thing? But I think the vast majority of people are clever enough to see the picture as what it is - some children, being children, one of whom is naked. I think Richard Kern is probably a great deal closer to the knuckle, but he never gets the high-profile shows to warrant a shitstorm.

However, should Elton John be banged up [arf] as a result of this, I would not object. I'll start the rumour here that Bono sold and commisioned the picture in the first place.

a picture of a chuild naked running arun is one thing. this picture however is of what Hustler used to call "the Beaver shot"
splayed legs with the naked little girl in the foreground. iffy. kinda iffy.

Again, it's only iffy; because of our own perceptions. I do believe she is trying to force the person viewing the picture to de-sexualize the picture. I believe she deliberately made the picture rather sexual, but then using her artistic integrity(?) forces us to de-sexualize the picture at our own risk. By titling the picture innocuously, using soft, slightly out-of-focus photography, a palpable aura of play and carelessness, and awkward framing and mannerisms of the subjects themselves, she is making it ever so 'artistic' and culturally relevant. But then, on the periphery, our eyes catch a glimpse of something so inherently taboo, that to even speak its name would be to call it upon us, something so horrifying that even being near it, forces us, everyday, to cleanse ourselves in the fire of machine guns, helicopters, tanks and bombs, huge bombs. No, the greatest crime this picture has committed, I think, is that it has dared to insinuate that the vagina could ever be innocent. Doesn't anyone remember what Eve did to Adam? We could still be in Heaven right now...

all eve did was give adam one hell of a sweet hummer.

Duh... We could still be in heaven right now... I rest my case... :o

hey alyasa
just wanted to say it is nice to have a conversation with someone that does not erupt into freakout. :)

Thx, could say the same for you too... :)

Nan G=latter day Egon Schiele, sans mental illness.
Same questions, really.

Perhaps the purpose of the work is too start these kind of discussions. The major concern here is that people of a perverted sexual bent might well get the wrong thing from the photograph. The problem is that sick people can become aroused by anything, should we ban children from being nude for the benifit of the sick minority. I don't think anyone would agree with that. Children should be free. They also should be safe. Its a thin line. Although I don't think the picture harms their actual safety. The second point comes from whether or not you believe the context is sexual. Which like any piece of art, depends of how you personally understand the intention of the artist. Nan Goldin is the only one who really knows. I think the important point I would like to make is that nobody believes the artist is promoting a pornographic view of children. The intention is to shock us if anything, Goldin certainly does not intend for us to be aroused by the image. Then again the perception of art is always outside the artist's control.

Well put... So it is the responsibility of the appreciators of art to promote discourse and analysis... Not just spend millions at art auctions...

I think part of the problem is the 'Angry Mob' as some British guitar-pop band might well put it. An unintellegent mass of low-brow media consumers who would be incapable of having the kind of intelligent debate we have all been having. Unfortunately people who lack understanding of art are the first to loudly proclaim their own ignorance. As long as these people exist and stick their noses in, it becomes impossible to have reasonable discourse and analysis outside the world of art appreciators.

Dear God that sounds pompous (its not meant too)

It might sound like it, but it is the truth.

The reality is that most of Planet Earth are like the gangsters you find in a Martin Scorsese movie; you'd never mistake them for artists...

did you guys know that the "comedian" Ghallagher has a twin brother and that he actually took over for Ghalagher for about 5 + years doing his show on the road? and noone could tell the difference? No lie.

Hahaha. Yes they are.

I've always believed if you know nothing about a subject you should openly admit this, and listen to people who do. If you want to remain willfully ignorant of the said subject, you should really just shut up. The arguments i've had with people about art have been quite incredible. In particular Modern Art. When you ask them to refer to any particular piece of 'Modern Art' the only example ever given is Tracey Emin's Unmade Bed. That is the general perception of modern art. I must admit I get truely angry when people dismiss whole movements/art forms with no knowledge whatsoever. Its not the ignorance that annoys me (people all have different interests, why should they know about the arts when I know nothing of mathematics?), its the way they roll around in ignorance that pisses me off.

Anger is inappropriate in these kind of situations... Tolerance is a gift worth havin especially when the 'Mob Mentality' manifests itself in ugly proportions. I wonder if Fred Durst posts here or is a member. He is a self-proclaimed big fan of Sonic Youth.